To agree with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade?

[thereareotherways]

Obviously I can predict the voting already! Ha.

TL;DR (at the top!): I support abortion but think Roe v Wade (and later cases) are not legally sound, and there are better ways to secure women's rights that would have more public support.

I'm personally not opposed to abortion in most real-life circumstances. I think after viability I would prefer other options to be explored, but I think most women having later-term abortions are doing it for serious medical reasons and I don't think that should be prosecuted. That said, I also am okay in principle with regulating abortion and I'm not an absolutist re: women's control: I think the fetus/baby does have some rights (which I weight proportionally more as the baby grows).

As I understand it, Roe v Wade and Casey rely on a right to "liberty" in the US constitution (primarily the 14th amendment), which otherwise doesn't mention abortion. I'm not a lawyer at all, I find this tenuous at best. Liberty has always had implied limits based on what's acceptable in society, and abortion was illegal until fairly recently. I don't think there's any justification for claiming that there's an implied consent of the people that abortion is morally acceptable - and the polarisation of the US on this issue reflects that.

I think the decision in Roe/Casey to impose abortion via activist judges was a poor decision both legally and politically. This is a clear case where elected representatives need to pass legislation that reflects their constituents' positions. If that legislation differs from state-to-state, well, that's the whole point of a federal system. Pro-choice candidates need to get elected in red states and then they will have the actual consent of the people, not tenuous implied consent.

The decision in Dobbs is here and good reading: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

I also have a faint hope that now that this has been overturned, both Republicans and Democrats might now return their focus to legislation instead of Supreme Court nominees. The power of the Supreme Court is too dominating in US politics: we should be pleased to see them ceding some power back to the legislature, i.e., the people's representatives!

This is like a first year political science assignment.

A very, very sad day for women's rights, we have been taken back decades.

I think some people are happy that foetuses have more body autonomy than women. It's a sad sad day when anyone, including women, cheer women losing rights.

And a tory MP is already busy retweeting the "win".

Which one @ldontWanna

I'm going in...

As if denying women an abortion wasn't bad enough, there are rumours that this is the start of denying laws which have been in place for years including contraception and gay marriage as well ffs! This is a sad day for women and society in general. There will be even more children in difficult circumstances now .

I find it terrifying that women’s right to choose what happens to their bodies have been removed for millions of women in what we consider a first world country.

For those opposed to pro choice for women, how would you feel in the future it the state decided you were only allowed 1 child (or even none) and mandated pregnant women to terminate - taking away our right to choose is a very slippery slope!

As many have said, this ruling won't actually stop abortions in the states that have banned them.

Instead it will force some women into back street abortions and all of the terrifying risks that carries. This will include women who can't afford to travel, young girls who don't want to tell their parents, and women in abusive relationships.

How can this be happening in 2022. What right does anyone have to dictate what other women do or don't do with their bodies.

The constitution does not explicitly grant a right to privacy - a series of cases have argued that various amendments imply it, but it isn't explicit. I believe Casey is based on the 14th amendment only, which says the state cannot "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

To take a step back: I admire the kind of activism we saw earlier this year from Mumsnet to lobby parliament on the specific issue of access to telemedical abortions before 9 weeks. It was a specific issue relevant in the UK with specific legislation wording that could be lobbied for and debated. It was an extremely practical measure that helps women directly and obviously, especially in an era of long waiting lists.

I find this much more helpful than American-style hyper-polarised debates. Decisions get made by people who show up and pay attention to the details. And the details matter a lot when it comes to abortion.

It's been deleted now.

If we start banning or restricting abortions, then we plunge ourselves straight back into the era of illegal, backstreet abortion clinics and coat hangers. Everyone should have the right to choose. People who want to have an abortion should be allowed to have one. In the same way, more should be done to make alternatives more feasible for people who don't want an abortion but feel that they have no choice.

The US constitution is bollocks. There I said it! Was written in much simpler times. But now things have changed and because of these ‘ideals’ Americans hold onto from yonder year they’ll never move on.

They would rather watch women suffer, allow hate speech rather than promote tolerance, and watch people die via mass shootings than ever challenge their precious constitution.

Everyone idiot going on about the ‘technicality’ of RvW without a thought to consequences is an idiot. Or a misogynist.

I don't particularly believe in abortion, I was in a situation where I had an unplanned pregnancy and I couldn't bring myself to do that. But I think every woman should have the choice. To take that away I think is absolutely disgusting, in this day and age as well!!

Couldn't agree more!!

They can sugar coat this all they like but once again this is a ruling towards removing women's rights.

I agree with many posters, I reckon this is

Rights…
They don’t exist as independent entities that are demonstrably self-evident, as people like to imagine.
The current debate in the UK about the ECHR shows precisely this for someone who assumes rights are derivative just from existence: rights are in existence because people agree they exist.
If any constitution or law determines rights exist - for life, against torture, for employment conditions, abortion… whatever you can think of - they can be overturned by a new legal precedent. It’s why the ECHR is so important for people who want a world without slavery, trafficking, harassment etc.
So - believe what you will OP but a foetus does not have rights unless they are enshrined in law.
Start with that premise cans see whether there’s sufficient legal basis for asserting that there are competing rights for a foetus.
Does the US constitution determine that there are rights for unborn humans?

The men on the SM posts I'm on 🤬🤬🤬I'm going to earn myself a ban if I'm not careful. And the religious nuts and deliberate language used to oppress and instil guilt spewing out their arses.

Dammit. Sausage fingers!

I reckon this is just the tip of the iceberg. Let's wait to see what they'll make illegal next.

I just find it appalling that this country will allow anyone and everyone to walk around with guns but not allow a woman to decide what to do with her own body.

On the news last night, a man celebrating the "win" said that they will now be "going after the family planning clinics".

One of the justices is black.

And another is female

I bet other liberties and "choices" are free game now as well like gay marriage.

I know @Gogster

But you get the gist

But it doesn't help bringing identify politics into it.

"a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics"

Identity politics? Like religion?